Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday October 30, 2009 @08:03AM
from the yeah-that-sounds-fantastic dept.

A recent Notice of Inquiry from the FCC is looking for opinions on how the "evolving electronic media landscape" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over such media. The full NOI (PDF) is available online. "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house,' while today, media choices are far more widespread for children, including videogames, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.'"

it's always "protect the children"
I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no
did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes
did I learn? yes
enough ideas without statistics I say

I agree 100%... The more "responsibility" the government takes, the less the parents will take. And IMHO that's the fundamental problem that has yet to be addressed... Fewer and fewer parents actually parenting and taking responsibility for their own children.

I agree 100%... The more "responsibility" the government takes, the less the parents can take. And IMHO that's the fundamental problem that has yet to be addressed... Fewer and fewer parents actually parenting and taking responsibility for their own children.

There. Fixed that for ya.

But, no, seriously. if the governments says your child has to do a,b and c, and has to have x,y, and z (even though it means husband and wife must take second jobs in order to provide them), you've limited what the parents CAN do.

Firearms are just another means of killing people, Ideas could instill hundreds, thousands or millions with the desire to kill(hence the revolutions of the past) and they'll achieve it with/without firearms if motivated enough. I imagine many governments see ideas as far more dangerous than guns.

The FCC's tasking is to maintain orderly control of a supposedly scarce resource, parceling out that resource fairly for the good of our society, and ensuring that users of the resource do not interfere with each others broadcasts so that its utilization is not compromised.

How this turned into a game of censorship is a story of failure of government, and failure of the citizens. Not to mention downright unconstitutional. There is no authority given to the government that allows it to implement censorship; and there is an explicit legal wall against it that can only be misinterpreted by idiots in the form of the first amendment to the US constitution:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Sadly, they never did a decent job of seeing to the good of our society, preferring to service the demands of corporations over any recognition that the citizens might have something to say as well. What do I mean? Well, where are the citizen's broadcast bands? Nowhere, that's where. This is not a technological problem, or a scarcity problem. We've simply been disenfranchised.

The Internet is not a scarce resource. We can make "more of it" simply by laying cable and deploying devices. It won't interfere with the rest of the Internet. It doesn't require parceling out; its nature is that the more entities connect to it, the more pipe we lay, the better it gets.

So what, we should be asking, is the FCC doing anywhere near it? Doesn't someone need their hand slapped about now?

Well, there's been CB and HAM for decades, really, but if you're emphasizing the broad in broadcast, then yeah, we largely sold out that use of the spectrum years ago, partly because that's mostly how we knew how to do it (aside from the ad hoc community or public access station), partly because it's always been that case that money talks.

But yeah, citizen's broadcast? Here, on the internet, the first really democratic broad communications medium.

"it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes did I learn? yes enough ideas without statistics I say"

You think YOU had a dangerous childhood??

Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, my parents both worked, yet I came home to a house alone (when very young I walked 2 blocks to and from school), I played in the neighborhood with neighborhood kids, roamed all over (again without tracking and cell phones), I ran around in the woods with BB and pellet guns, we 'stole' wood from local houses being built to build makeshift skateboard ramps (and sometimes forts in the woods). Goodness, when we went to a mall, my parents would set up a meeting time and place, and we'd go our separate ways for 2-3 hours at a time, yes, I wondered around unsupervised?!?!? Yep, I dove off diving boards in swimming pools! I got dropped off to hang at the arcades for hours at a time. I had a pretty wide area to cover at any given time by walking, bicycling, skateboarding....while never wearing a helment.

Yep, it is amazing myself and my friends made it past puberty!! By today's scared standards of treating children, we should have all been killed by and accident, if not abducted, raped and killed first...and of course, our parents would have been arrested for child neglect.

Amazing we all made it to even see the dawn of the internet and video games with good graphics...

We both must be about the same age - I'm 45. It just kills me that we have to have "play dates" for my kids to play with other kids, and my kids don't venture into the woods the way I liked so much as a kid. We agree that today's environment of fear is just that - pointless fear, driven by the media.

Anyway, some things are different today. My introduction to porn was sneaking peaks at my Dad's Playboy magazines, which he would read while Mom cleaned and cooked and held down a job. Dad's back then had it all - no poopy diapers, wives who did all the housework and had paying jobs, and who felt guilty if you didn't get enough sex...

Today, kids don't get that sneak-peek into porn when they finally become curious about sex. And, let's face it... Playboy had a sense of class and beauty missing from redtube.com. Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video. Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.

I took advice I got here on slashdot, and use the free opendns.com DNS filter. I also use addblock plus in firefox on all our computers. OpenDNS gives me some control over the content filiter - I use the low settings, only blocking phishing and hard-core porn. These tools are waaaaay better than anything the FCC might dream up. Instead of more government censorship, how about a program for training/educating parents, so we can all learn how to take advantage of the excellent, and free tools that already exist out there? Something as simple as requiring ISPs to send information packets about Internet filtering might do the trick. Perhaps requiring the installers who do house visits to train how to filter, not just how to use the DVR. All parents know how to record Pokemon. How many know how to protect their kids from googling "hot guys"?

Instead, eight-year girls type "hot guy" into Google, and get hard-core video. Their intro into the idea of sex is likely going to be a foot-long dong butt-f*cking a teenager.

What should come up, pictures of asexual or gay guys that look like 15-year-old girls? That's not healthy either, and your girls are going to be in for a surprise, if they don't grow up as lesbians. As a father you should educate them about lube, not erect a screen of fantasy (with gaping holes) in front of the world.

There are SCADS of "plans" in place to afford you all the control you could want - right up to and including NOT putting a computer in your kid's room or even NOT having an internet connection to the house. On the shiny side of that there's DNS solutions, filtering software and even learning to use the goddamn HOSTS file in your own computer.

Your right to raise your kids does not trump another's right to indulge in whatever perversion tickles their fancy nor does it trump yet another's right to express said perversions. Deal with it.

"Speaking of which, for all those who are so vocal against this but do not have children... this subject does not pertain to you. Please close this tab and go back to watching porn."

What? Since when does having someone else crap out a badly copied, smaller version of you give you magical insight into raising children? If anything, the unreasoned, illogical, over-reactionary response most people have when faced with something that might someday have a small chance of doing even the slightest amount of damage

Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story. The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.

A better way to use anecdote would be to ask, "How many of the people I went to grade school with were abducted by strangers" vs. "How many of the people I went to school with were hurt in car accidents?"

They also ignore the reality of saturation marketing, not just targeted at children generally but specifically adjusted to each childs profile to more effectively control the decisions and to more accurately distort the child's future psychological growth to more profitably align with the highest bidders marketing dollars.

Consider the real underlying nature of that profession. Adults trained as psychologists who use their education and skills to manipulate vulnerable children so that they can be more pro

"Regardless of the risks, the fact that you're fine is no shock because there will always been somebody to tell that story. The kids that don't make it aren't around to tell their story.

To put it into statistical perspective, lets exaggerate a bit (ok, a lot:)) and say that all those activities you listed has a 40% chance of resulting in death or dismemberment. Is that an acceptable statistic? Absolutely not, yet you'd still have 60% of people sarcastically proclaiming "Hey I did all that stuff as a kid.

But really, those things I listed I did as a kid, were NOT done alone...I had friends, lots of friends who were there doing that stuff with me. Most all kids my age were doing shit like that...it was known back then at "being a kid".

Maybe I made a mistake by using the exaggerated example. In reality the differences are much smaller - MOST kids doing dangerous things will be fine.

Take for example safety seats and seat belts. When I was a kid we didn't use those child safety seats. All of us just sat in the vehicle normally for as far back as I can remember - not even wearing seatbelts 99% of the time. Pretty much every other kid I knew did the same. And you know what? None of the small children that I knew died from it back then.

Hell, I grew up with no cell phones, [...] while never wearing a helment.

Same here to all the above.

I contend that the world today is no less safe for kids, but that every single bad thing that may happen is broadcast nationally in lurid detail. My father-in-law is convinced that there's a pedo behind every tree and that I'm stupid for not being more worried about it (yes: those were his words). Does anyone know where I could find stats on things like abductions by strangers that would show wish view is more accurate?

Agreed. I can't get too worked up about non-custodial parent kidnappings. OK, so Dad (or Mom) didn't have the legal right of custody. That's a far cry from them being sold to a Satanic cult, or whatever the moral panic is this week.

As such, they try and pick a category which is nearly indefensible. Children work very well.

The trick is not allowing yourself to be intimidated by this type of tactics. Look at the debates over health care, stimulus, and such. Who do they put into the argument who doesn't have bearing on what you were addressing? Children, the poor, the elderly, or the "insert favored group here". All in an attempt to change the discussion just enough to devalue your stand.

If the government said, "Y'know, we'd like to exert more control over the blogosphere, over all electronic media, really: restrict what is said, know the identities of who is saying it, get a firm handle on who is on the mailing lists of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh... whaddya say, citizens, can we do that?" the answer would be a resounding, "Over Our Dead Body."

The "kids" thing is the spoonful of sugar that makes the tyranny go down...

it's always "protect the children" I spent all of my childhood past the age of 8 online and did I get abducted? did I become a horrible person? no did I become much more resourceful and patient in understanding computers? yes did I learn? yes enough ideas without statistics I say

Yes, but consider that if you hadn't you'd have had time for learning how to use the Shift key, and how to punctuate.

Is it any different if a person butchers a cat for food? My parents participated in butchering chickens as when they were children. My siblings and I watched our father butcher a deer about once per year. Maybe it's sick to raise children without an understanding and appreciation of where their food comes from.

Some limits need to be put in place because there are really sick people out there. 'Click here to proceed' and 'you must be 18' just won't cut it.

No, but kids spend less time playing outside nowadays as they have more options inside.

I think I spent far too much time inside when I was young, and I'm less healthy as a result (I'm underweight), but that was mostly because of my parents not letting me go anywhere and nothing to do with the government.

Fuck you very much the FCC; fuck you very much for fining me. Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck: thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me. So fuck you very much the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free. Clear Channel's a dear channel so Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so. He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo, so fuck you all so very much. [youtube.com]

While the FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, they allowed Clear Channel to buy up all the radio stations without even blinking. When Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they took years to decide whether strong competition against terrestrial radio should be allowed (Clear Channel and the NAB lobbied against the merger hoping both Sirius and XM would fail). The FCC is useless and should not be given more power.

The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- t

"The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history."

Yeah, that was one ugly saggy tit that's for sure!!!

Man, for some reason I'd expected Janet to have kept her 'rack' in much better condition!!

I bet when the FCC's done, "net neutrality" will have evolved into something unrecognizable, more akin to censorship of our personal blogs and emails (and probably bittorrent too) rather than true net neutrality.

Mark my words. You'll come back here a year from now and say, "Wow you were right." I think we need to regulate monopolies like Comcast, but based upon what I've heard coming from the FCC Chair, he has something else in mind - control of the web. So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).

> So basically we're trading one evil (comcast) for another (government).

The big difference is, for the most part Comcast's remedies if you subvert them are largely civil in nature -- denying you future service, charging you penalty fees, suing you, or the like. The government can have you thrown in prison.

Of course, some companies and court jurisdictions have been hard at work finding creative ways to criminalize breaches of corporate policy (particularly through abuse of "theft of electricity" rationales), but for the most part there's still a line between things that are criminal vs merely civil. Comcast's mostly on the 'civil' side, but the government is almost exclusively on the 'criminal' side.

The big difference is, for the most part Comcast's remedies if you subvert them are largely civil in nature -- denying you future service, charging you penalty fees, suing you, or the like. The government can have you thrown in prison.

The FCC can't imprison you. Only Congress (at the Federal level) can pass laws with prison time. FCC rules are administrative, which is more akin to civil than criminal law. At most, the FCC may investigate certain crimes, but those crimes were defined by Congress, and a law enforcement body would have to make the arrest.

That's not to say I think they should be given authority; the last thing we need on the 'net is a gang of holier-than-thou thugs armed with the power to fine and a giant banhammer. These

Read the request for comments, and replace "electronic media" with "community playgrounds". You'll find that most of the comments still apply - they give children educational opportunities but come with a small risk of children being exposed to something inappropriate and run a very small risk of children being targeted by those who would do them harm.

Personally, I have a 7-year-old daughter, and the TV is relegated to the basement where it has no influence over our lives. Despite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time".

Having said all that, this is a conscious choice I make for my daughter, because I feel it is in her best interests. I personally feel this is a conscious choice that every American family should make, and I'm a rather vocal proponent of "kill your television" (at least until the kids reach their teens and the major brain development is completed). I am NOT, repeat NOT in favor of giving the US Government the power to dictate this to every family. This should be a decision that every family makes on their own.

As to "protecting the children from inappropriate content", what "inappropriate content" are we protecting them from, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, the most damaging thing you can do to a young mind is fill them with violent conflict, because it takes a lot of time and emotion to process that conflict and understand it, and that's time better spent by the brain developing free play skills and engaging in creative activities. Are we afeared that a couple of titties or a wanker might permanently scar the them for life? That's nothing compared to the impact that commonly-accepted kids programs are already having. So if the FCC is looking to regulate this, they've already approved what is probably the LEAST appropriate content possible. Bus has left the station, folks, and the FCC missed it.

Make your own decisions for your own family. Don't allow the government to do it for you. This one's gotta go down. The government has no place dictating this.

Oh, and for you parents out there, I urge you to please consider "killing your television". Please. As a conscious and informed decision, not as a government mandate.

Wait, so she's not given access to the greatest information resource of our age, nor to even measured amounts of what has become, rightly or wrongly, the central transport medium of western culture?

Good luck with that. I love the idea that depriving kids of something will keep them somehow pure. How's that forbidden fruit angle craving of hers coming along?

Also, as a self confessed geek, I would have though you would have been trying to foster an interest in technology and computers in general. Each to their own, but I can't say I agree with your approach.

As a child's environment is controlled, you can choose to artificially make it whatever you want. For example, you can decide to educate your child in an environment similar to yours, removing all advances in communications beyond what existed when you were two years old.

Or, you could choose to remove all electric equipment. Or central heating. Or current water. It's an experiment bet.

You're betting your child will be better (happier?) if it grows up in an environment similar to what children in the early n

She will be exposed to the Internet, and get more exposure to TV, and electronics as she gets older.

It's just that, at seven, her brain is still in a stage of development where exposure to a lot of that sort of stimulation hampers more important aspects of her mental, emotional, and physical development.

Or at least so goes the theory behind her school.

As I posted in another reply, an in-depth discussion of what is behind her school's methodology is way beyond a Slashdot post.

"espite the fact that I am an acknowledged geek, my daughter is not on the Internet and won't be for a while yet. This has nothing to do with the dangers from strangers, but the negative influence electronic media have on the developing mind, and is based on a request from her school to minimize what they call "screen time"."
And here I was thinking that exposing my son to things like Google Earth and science / nature related Internet sites was a good thing.

Not to go all "Clinton" on you, but I should explain (in case you care, which you probably don't) what I mean by "my daughter is not on the Internet".

- She does get email from grandparents, and with our assistance replies to that email.
- When she wants to learn about something she's heard about, say a new animal or something, we go together and look it up, and I use that as a launchpad for the kinds of creative play her daughter's school encourages (we look up owls, and she goes and draws so

I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words). If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.

Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday. Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees, and stop having a fit if they see a naked body.

What I don't understand is this American idea that nudity is wrong. No, I'm not a nudist.

I have family in Finland and when I was 16 and stayed at an aunts house, I happened to take notice of a rather peculiar advertisement on TV. A full frontal nude shot of a rather un-pretty man. I don't remember all the details but apparently it was a cell phone commercial.

The fact that I still remember this to this day is shocking in itself. The most basic thing we have as humans is our bodies and our minds. Why is it that we censor our bodies to such an absolute degree?

What, really, is the big deal here?

I agree with you, c64, children should be able to learn about the basic human body and what it is for. There is zero harm in that. Obviously, however, I wouldn't show them hardcore porn, but if there happens to be simple nudity or a discovery program about the birds and the bees, so be it. And if you're against them seeing that sort of thing, limit their exposure to it, but please don't ask the government to decide for _you_ because that would mean they are deciding for _me_ as well. Be a parent and parent your children.

The backwards ideas about the human body and sexuality pervasive in "mainstream" American society can be directly traced back to fundamentalist Christians, and to the founding of our country. Puritans, Baptists, Methodists, (old-school) Catholics, Quakers, The Amish, etc all had direct and strict influences on how we as a culture developed, for better or for worse.

So, as usual, we can correctly blame the issue on Bible-thumping nincompoops spewing forth fire and brimstone damnation for anyone that even admires a bit of exposed ankle.

At least women aren't being branded with scarlet A's anymore for looking a married man in the eyes.

I don't want my internet to be as dull and uninteresting as broadcast TV (no nudity, no curse words). If you don't like your children seeing such things, change the channel, don't buy cable, install filtering software, don't let the kids use the computer unless you're there, and so on.

I totally agree with this.

Or adopt a more-adult attitude or realizing your kids are going to be having sex someday. Now is as good a time as any to teach them about the birds and bees,

You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.

I think every parent should be able to determine when this needs to be discussed. Personally I don't think that 3 years old is appropriate. Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. Many a

>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.>>>

Because.

When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.

Okay granted YOU didn't say you lie to your kids, but I know a lot of parents who do. Then later the kid gets pregnant or knocks-up a girl at age 13, and they wonder how that happened. Duh. It's because they never TAUGHT the kid how their bodies work, that's why. I don't see any reason to withhold knowledge. Better they learn it from me under my supervision, then on their own or from someone else.

>>>I don't feel the gov't has the right to tell people how to raise their children in general

>>>You've lost me here. We are talking about children, so why would anyone in their right mind "adopt a more-adult attitude"? Let kids be kids. I think it's totally unfair to make them grow up any faster than they already have to.>>>

Because.

When my 8-year-old asked, "Where do babies come from?" I told him the answer straight up - "When a married man and woman are sleeping together in bed, the man puts his penis into her. Then a baby grows inside." He went "ewww" and that was the end of it. He was no more traumatized by that info then he was traumatized about wiping poo off his bottom. And I think your idea that kids should be kept in the dark or lied to ("babies come from the stork") is akin to mental child abuse.

Ahh. I guess it makes a difference once you specify an age. My daughter first asked us about this at 2.5 years. My wife and I chose to tell her that it was something that we felt should be discussed when she was older. And no, we did not tell her some dumb ass lie about storks or baby fairies. I agree that lying to your children is akin to child abuse, however I think in many cases withholding some things until they are old enough to process and understand it is important. While we didn't tell her about the

Younger kids don't understand the consequences of their actions or have the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. Many adults don't for that matter.

Mostly this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sure there is some physical limit before which it's not possible for a child to respond to delayed consequences but if parents never expect this behavior from their children then they won't learn it as quickly. The brain is very flexable like that.

Yes young brains learn fast. My 6-year-old niece surprised me when she lifted my T-shirt and said, "Your chest is hairy. That's because you're a MAN. And mommmy has boobs because she's a WOman." I just said, "Uhh... yep that's right." I don't know where she picked that up, but apparently her brain's developed enough to recognize the key differences between boys, girls, men, and women.

She's also really good at using the computer. She's learning faster than my adult brother, and I've been trying to te

I believe that the FCC (and the Federal government in general; indeed, most of the world's governments) would like the internet to be like Murray Leinster predicted [baen.com] in 1946.

The link goes to the story itself, a very good sci-fi short story that comes the closest to any story I've seen to predicting the internet, even more than Asimov's "Multivac". But Leinster's story is based on the premise that an uncensored internet would be disasterous.

Growing up, I knew several families who restricted their kids from watching The Simpsons. I think those type of standards are sorely lacking thesedays and we should use them as positive examples to reassert control. Now they've got the twitters, these children are beginning to secretly rape themselves.

oops I mean Pennsylvania they sent two teens to jail (for one night) because they took photos of their naked bodies. Oh horror! You can see your teenage body naked while showering or dressing, but use a camera to capture that sight with your cellphone...... and the world will come to an end!!! (So claims the prosecutor.)

It's especially stupid considering the U.S. Supreme Court ruled nudity is not pornography, therefore not a crime. I guess the prosecutor doesn't read SCOTUS decisions.

Why aren't parents being held responsible for censoring their own children? It's the parents the put the computer in their room in the first place. Why should the government have to control what kids have access to?

Can somebody explain to me some legal theory under which the FCC -- or the federal government, for that matter -- has any authority to regulate the content of videogames?

I understood the rationale behind regulating broadcasting. If stuff is going out over the public airwaves, then the public -- by proxy of their humble servants in the government -- should have power to oversee its contents, to ensure that broadcasts are of benefit to the general populace.

Videogames, last I checked, were not broadcast over the public airwaves. They are bought and sold as private transactions.

And before anybody says "commerce clause". . . I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content. But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.

Caveat: I am not a constitutional scholar. (However, some people who apparently *are* constitutional scholars seem to have appalling ignorance of, or disregard for, these issues.)

The only reason the FCC exists is to manage access to the EM sprectrum so that the public can use it without stepping on each other's toes. Expanding their authority beyond that has no legal justification.

And before anybody says "commerce clause". . . I can see how that would enable the federal government to regulate or tax the sale of games across state lines, regardless of their content. But if they started evaluating the contents and discriminating between games, then that bumps up against the 1st Amendment.

Except that 3 of the 5 commissioners of the FCC were appointed by Obama, so this Notice of Inquiry was supported by at least one of the commissioners put in place by Obama. Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.

Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.

The key difference here was that Bush was too foolish to understand the Constitution - Obama has said in interviews that he believes the negative reciprocity upon which the Constitution is based is flawed, and that we ought to have a system of positive rights.

Obama has demonstrated even less interest in the Constitution than Bush.

The key difference here was that Bush was too foolish to understand the Constitution - Obama has said in interviews that he believes the negative reciprocity upon which the Constitution is based is flawed, and that we ought to have a system of positive rights.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Obama is better because he intentionally violates the Constitution, while Bush just did it through ignorance?

It'd be a huge stretch to declare video games and home entertainment systems to be under the umbrella of the FCC, and any kind of censorship or regulation on their part would be a massive expansion of their purpose and powers. I just don't see this happening.

The FCC is one of the most important governmental agencies with regards to technology and culture, yet the FCC doesn't seem to have any clue what it's supposed to be doing. They consistently eliminate or nullify their most valuable powers (ensuring fair and beneficial use of the public airwaves), while trying to grab ridiculous and useless ones to replace them (censorship, this nonsense).

FYI, Gardner (the author) has a podcast [feedburner.com] now. If you can get past his obsession with punk and The Prisoner, he has some very good insights and does a great job at logical deconstruction. He got fired from his radio job (IMO) for not letting a politician weasel out of a 2nd Amendment question.

Mostly like the (somewhat broken) MPAA, there should merely by ratings and guidelines that enable parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise their kids.

I don't want my daughter playing Grand Theft Auto. But I certainly don't want anyone telling me how to raise my kid. Voluntary rating systems are the way to go. However, unlike the MPAA, the rules for how the ratings are determined should be transparent.

First - I'm not convinced that the nudity ban on TV is nearly as critical as it is made. That said, I'm fine with the FCC enforcing content restrictions on broadcasters even when they weren't the party directly responsible. Otherwise there is no real incentive for networks to police their content - in fact they're better off just collecting ad revenue and not even watching their own programming lest they be found responsible.

The solution in that case was to go ahead and fine the wazoo out of the network,

There was plenty of protest when ABC showed two women in bed together last year on Grey's Anatomy. Major groups threatened to boycott the network. (In theory the Christian Coalition already boycotts everything Disney because Disney doesn't go out of their way to stop the "gay" days at Disney, which Disney neither endorses nor organizes).

The network was terrified of the boycott and eliminated the lesbian couple. Then there was a backlash ab

Though I have a clear opinion on which side I agree with there, that's a great example of one thing that makes censorship such a mess: whose standards do you censor by? You're gonna get either mob rule or its opposite depending on how you make that call.

The whole thing was dumb...it wasn't even a bare nipple...or if it was, she has star shaped nipples. And aren't we supposed to think of the children? Nipples aren't only things babies see every day, but they actually suck on them. How can this atrocity continue?

As to your point, it is fine to say the FCC shouldn't have the right to fine them. But what keeps them in check? Unless you believe it should be unregulated and people should be able to show whatever they want whenever they want. Like hardcore

BREAKING: "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that 'twenty years ago, parents worried about their children having only a small vocabulary,' while today, word choices are far more widespread for children, which 'have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.'"

FCC is looking for opinions on how our "evolving language" affects kids, and whether the FCC itself should have more regulatory control over su

Why do they need more power, they already control too much, I find this is just another way for them to go after certain cases and generate more legal revenue. I tend to think that a parent(s) know when their child has too much tv, so telling me they can sue the parents for allowing their kids to watch too much TV (a form of child abuse) is beyond what they should have the ability to do.

The FCC was needed way back when technology was being introduced to households, and most households were ignorant to too m

I see the usual cohort of libertarian slashdotters is in full freak out mode because of this. But if they bothered to they would see:
"The FCC also is asking commenters to "to discuss whether the Commission has the statutory authority to take any proposed actions and whether those actions would be consistent with the First Amendment.""
Posting as AC to preserve karma.

This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet, paving the way for future content control regulations.